A. 
Purpose. When the city receives a project permit application, consistency between the proposed project and the applicable regulations and comprehensive plan should be determined through the process in this chapter and the city's adopted SEPA ordinance, CHMC Title 18.
B. 
Consistency. A proposed project's consistency with the city's development regulations adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, or, in the absence of applicable development regulations, the appropriate comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW shall be determined by consideration of:
1. 
The type of land use;
2. 
The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
3. 
Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development; and
4. 
The character of the development, such as development standards. [RCW 36.70B.040.]
C. 
Project Review. Project review by the city staff shall identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable adverse environmental impacts. During project review, neither the administrator nor any other city reviewing body may re-examine alternatives or hear appeals on matters found consistent with development regulations and/or the comprehensive plan, except for issues of code interpretation.
(Ord. 738 § 1, 1996; Ord. 766 § 4, 1997)
A. 
Consistency with SEPA. The city shall also review the project permit application under the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city environmental policy ordinance, CHMC Title 18, and shall:
1. 
Determine whether the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project permit application's specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. 
Determine if the applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such environmental impacts;
3. 
Determine whether additional studies are required and/or whether the project permit application should be conditioned with additional mitigation measures;
4. 
Provide prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level.
B. 
Adequate Analysis of Environmental Impacts in Existing Regulations. In its review of a project permit application, the city may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application.
1. 
The city may make the determination provided for in this subsection (B) if:
a. 
In the course of project review, including any required environmental analysis, the city considers the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determines that these specific impacts are adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan element of the comprehensive plan, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws; and
b. 
The city bases or conditions its approval on compliance with these requirements or mitigation measures.
2. 
If the city's comprehensive plans, subarea plans and development regulations adequately address a project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under this subsection (B), the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review. Project review shall be integrated with environmental analysis under this chapter.
3. 
A comprehensive plan, subarea plan or development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the city, through the planning and environmental review process under Chapters 36.70A and 43.21C RCW, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and:
a. 
The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
b. 
The city council has designated acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards or other land use planning required or allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. 
No Additional Mitigation to be Imposed. If the city bases or conditions its approval of the project permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described in subsection (A) of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review.
D. 
Consultations with Other Agencies. In its decision whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the city shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the city shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws.
E. 
No Limitation on City's SEPA Authority. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the city in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
F. 
Further Review to Proceed Under SEPA Ordinance. The city shall also review the application under Chapter 18.04 CHMC, the city environmental policy ordinance; provided, that such review shall be coordinated with the underlying permit application review.
(Ord. 738 § 1, 1996; Ord. 766 § 5, 1997)
A. 
Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA. [RCW 43.21C.031.]
B. 
Planned Actions.
1. 
A planned action does not require a threshold determination or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under SEPA, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation under SEPA.
2. 
A "planned action"
means one or more types of project action that:
a. 
Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or resolution adopted by the city;
b. 
Have had the significant impacts adequately addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in conjunction with:
i. 
A comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, or
ii. 
A fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project;
c. 
Are subsequent or implementing projects for the proposals listed in subsection (B)(2)(b) of this section;
d. 
Are located within an urban growth area, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030;
e. 
Are not essential public facilities, as defined in RCW 36.70A.200; and
f. 
Are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW. [RCW 43.21C.031.]
C. 
Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit planned actions to certain types of development or to specific geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time period identified in the environmental impact statement or in the ordinance or resolution designating the planned action under RCW 36.70A.040. [RCW 43.21C.031.]
D. 
Limitations on SEPA Review. During project review, the city shall not re-examine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items identified in CHMC § 19.04.001(B), except for issues of code interpretation. Project review shall be used to identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal's probable adverse environmental impacts. [RCW 36.70B.030(3).]
(Ord. 738 § 1, 1996)